ÿWPCœ ‰„^6–J…Esùšûó|Q-ªÔNÏmÌF÷oWÑ](ÒDsuM¶nFWDnæA¬ÝËU‹ÍÛT”ü„¡y¥ð_±sÔq)áHÓ¤å¶nD¢+à÷N°–3í±%¬ÇËìè"‹h±94«]a.±Ùxâþ\ñN¦1yu‘zy{"m3¤Œ?)|¹7ù@[[S *Åë«››Ïrºiâ™±øØ“q¨iL©ÑÏ”Õ>Ö»Ôªý>ÌE‡;T`Dæî$)þÍ,àM€¨±Ü››¼êذºI4ò³î¨?4˜ó\ã•ö¯;7Ï¢®ïÔÝ‚ùkonþÑŽm³d¹¬°Š×ZCX>þöïF§ÎÞ&rÒÕ½¯~JsiÏÁˆ.'Jr£@AKPâ_«ÁŽVüwJw—ž »äl[UNÆ?üPlî}x\Yt¥UƒT{(†o‡R/%ü"³Xš²y,ñAyÖ±Î)€– ú˜ØÔªfý_žE"›5 …Ê.?nõФ«Ü,Ló‹2+üëmîî‡Ç÷Üa@ÝÖù®wùl× ¤ ?Ñ͉¡i"òðÄ7âȼ*XÝjã¿÷…ô­A6|ÞdL—èSFçÆ:޵;¸\:8žrÚþ€MT„î·¼q¥b %\#Áb 0ˆ# UN« 0Dù 1u= ^ ² z¾ Ò8 w 4 " 1 Æ3 Æù Æ¿ Æ… mKNb 72d 0c–EùU@ûUN;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;‰‰‰‰‰‰b‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ 0ë™™™™ B„„ 0¤¡ D3E D-x 0K¥¥ ASðÆC 0¤  0D­ A«ñ»˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)ª³t-s  ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptüPH,  3|xLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀi)(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman (ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular - ù-(|G2´ü$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ »»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¯•ò»»Ô d(|3¿`$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ »»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3¿`$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ »»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ »»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼ »»»ÔÑ8€KAXXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ttìàÔ‡î  ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼ »îî #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓAssigned€on€Briefs€October€29,€2002Ð üL ЀÔ‡XKAX»¼ ÔÐ ^ Ðò òÔ#†¼ »XXKA #ÔJESSE€CARTER€v.€STATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóóÔ‡XKAX»¼ Ôó óÐ  p ÐÌò òDirect€ó óà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Bedford€CountyÐ  p Ðà@@øøìàNo.€8784€€€€€€€Charles€Lee,€JudgeÐ  \ ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<Ï` AßÐ Ð  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2001„02496„CCA„R3„PC€„€Filed€November€20,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ Ë  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<¢` AßÐ £ó  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€petitioner€appeals€the€denial€of€his€post„conviction€relief€petition.€€He€argues:€(1)€his€trialÐ žî  Ðcounsel€was€ineffective€in€advising€him€regarding€the€sentence€agreement€in€which€he€waived€hisÐ ŠÚ Ðright€to€appeal;€and€(2)€he€did€not€knowingly€and€voluntarily€waive€his€right€to€appeal.€€We€concludeÐ vÆ Ðthat€although€the€post„conviction€court€erroneously€stated€that€the€uncorroborated€testimony€of€theÐ b² Ðpost„conviction€petitioner€ð ðshould€be€summarily€struck,ðð€the€post„conviction€court,€nevertheless,Ð Nž Ðmade€proper€and€adequate€findings€which€support€the€denial€of€relief.€€We€affirm€the€judgment€ofÐ :Š Ðthe€post„conviction€court.Ð &v ÐÓ³ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€AffirmedÐ þN Ðó óÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼ »àXKAŒ#ÔÔ‡XKAX.¼ ÔJoe€G.€Riley,óó€J.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòGary€R.€Wade,€Ô_ÔP.J.Ô_Ô,€óóand€òòRobert€W.Ð Ö& ÐÔ_ÔWedemeyerÔ_Ô,€J.óó,€joined.Ð Â ÐÌÔ_ÔHershellÔ_Ô€D.€Ô_ÔKogerÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔPulaskiÔ_Ô,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Jesse€Carter.Ð šê ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Jennifer€L.€Ô_ÔBledsoeÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð r  ÐW.€Michael€Ô_ÔMcCownÔ_Ô,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Michael€David€Ô_ÔRandlesÔ_Ô,€Assistant€DistrictÐ ^!®  ÐAttorney€General,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð J"š! ÐÌÌÓ:Óò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼ »XXKAi#ÔÔ‡XKAX»¼ ÔÐ %^ $ ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼ »XXKA #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XKAX»¼ Ôà  àA€Bedford€County€jury€convicted€the€petitioner€of€possession€with€intent€to€deliver€over€0.5Ð æ&6"& Ðgrams€of€cocaine€and€resisting€arrest.€€He€also€pled€guilty€to€simple€possession€of€marijuana.€€On€theÐ Ò'"#' Ðday€of€the€petitionerððs€sentencing€hearing,€petitionerððs€attorneys€discovered€the€state€intended€toÐ ¾($( Ðpresent€proof€that€the€petitioner€had€been€involved€in€two€drug€sales€in€Nashville€while€on€bond.Ð ª)ú$) ÐÌà  àThe€proof€at€the€evidentiary€hearing€showed€trial€counsel€and€the€petitioner€were€allowed€toÐ ‚+Ò&+ Ðreview€the€evidence€and€interview€the€stateððs€witnesses€regarding€these€sales.€€The€state€and€theÐ n,¾', Ðpetitioner€then€entered€into€an€agreement€whereby€the€petitioner€would€be€sentenced€to€ten€yearsððÐ Z-ª(-ý ÐÔ_Ôincarceration,€would€forfeit€his€automobile,€and€would€waive€his€right€to€appeal€his€conviction;€inÐ ° Ðreturn,€the€district€attorneyððs€office€would€encourage€Metro€Nashville€not€to€pursue€charges€on€theÐ œì Ðtwo€alleged€drug€sales.€€The€trial€court€questioned€the€petitioner€regarding€the€agreement€and€hisÐ ˆØ Ðwaiver€of€the€right€to€appeal;€it€then€accepted€the€agreement.€€The€petitioner€also€signed€the€orderÐ tÄ Ðwhich€waived€his€right€to€appeal.€Ð `° ÐÌà  àIn€his€post„conviction€relief€petition,€the€petitioner€alleged€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€inÐ 8 ˆ Ðadvising€him€regarding€the€consequences€of€accepting€the€agreement,€and€the€waiver€of€appeal€wasÐ $ t Ðnot€made€knowingly€and€voluntarily.€€The€post„conviction€court€found€that€trial€counsel€renderedÐ  ` Ðeffective€assistance,€and€that€the€petitioner€voluntarily€waived€his€right€to€appeal;€accordingly,€itÐ ü L  Ðdismissed€the€post„conviction€relief€petition.Ð è 8  ÐÌÌà@» » ìàò òó óÔ‡XKAXXXKAÔà@@¸ ¸ ìàò òI.€INEFFECTIVE€ASSISTANCE€OF€COUNSELó óˆÐ ¬ü  ÐÌÔ#†XKAXXXKA]#ÔÔ‡XKAXXXKAÔà  àWhen€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€is€made€under€the€Sixth€Amendment,€theÐ „Ô  Ðburden€is€upon€the€complaining€party€to€show€(1)€that€counsel's€performance€was€deficient,€and€(2)Ð pÀ Ðthe€deficiency€was€prejudicial€in€terms€of€rendering€a€reasonable€probability€that€the€result€of€the€trialÐ \¬ Ðwas€unreliable€or€the€proceedings€fundamentally€unfair.€€òòSeeóó€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.Ð H˜ Ð668,€687,€104€S.€Ct.€2052,€2064,€80€L.€Ed.€2d€674€(1984)òòóóòòóó.€€Our€supreme€court€has€applied€theÐ 4„ ÐòòStricklandóó€standard€to€the€right€to€counsel€under€Article€I,€Section€9€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€Ð  p ÐòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Melsonóó,€772€S.W.2d€417,€419€n.2€(Tenn.€1989).€€Ð  \ ÐÌà  àIn€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975),€our€supreme€court€required€that€theÐ ä4 Ðservices€be€rendered€within€the€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.€€InÐ Ð  Ðreviewing€counsel's€conduct,€a€ð ðfair€assessment€of€attorney€performance€requires€that€every€effortÐ ¼  Ðbe€made€to€eliminate€the€distorting€effects€of€hindsight,€to€reconstruct€the€circumstances€of€counsel'sÐ ¨ø Ðchallenged€conduct,€and€to€evaluate€the€conduct€from€counsel's€perspective€at€the€time.ðð€€òòStricklandóó,Ð ”ä Ð466€U.S.€at€689,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2065;€sòòeeóó€òòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982).€€Ð €Ð ÐÌòòóóÔ#†XKAXXXKAò#Ôà  àWe€will€review€the€petitionerððs€claims€in€the€same€manner€in€which€we€would€review€a€claimÐ X ¨ Ðthat€counsel€was€ineffective€in€advising€his€client€regarding€a€guilty€plea.€Ô‡XKAXXXKAÔ€As€to€guilty€pleas,€theÐ D!” Ðpost„conviction€relief€petitioner€must€establish€that,€but€for€counselððs€errors,€petitioner€would€notÐ 0"€  Ðhave€entered€the€plea€and€would€have€insisted€on€going€to€trial.€€òòSeeóó€òòHill€v.€Lockhartóó,€474€U.S.€52,Ð #l! Ð59,€106€S.€Ct.€366,€88€L.€Ed.€2d€203€(1985).€€Thus,€as€pertinent€to€this€case,€petitioner€must€establishÐ $X" Ðthat€he€would€not€have€waived€his€right€to€appeal€but€for€counselððs€deficient€performance.Ð ô$D # ÐÔ#†XKAXXXKA9#ÔÔ‡XKAXXXKAÔÌà  àThe€petitioner€bears€the€burden€of€proving€the€factual€allegations€that€would€entitle€petitionerÐ Ì&"% Ðto€relief€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence.€€òòòòóóóóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-30-210(f).€€We€review€the€post„Ð ¸'#& Ðconviction€court's€factual€findings€underlying€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€under€a€òòdeÐ ¤(ô#' Ðnovoóó€standard€with€a€presumption€that€those€findings€are€correct,€unless€the€preponderance€of€theÐ )à$( Ðevidence€establishes€otherwise.€€òòState€v.€Burnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€453,€461€(Tenn.€1999).€€However,€the€post„Ð |*Ì%) Ðconviction€court's€conclusions€of€law,€such€as€whether€counsel's€performance€was€deficient€orÐ h+¸&* Ðwhether€that€deficiency€was€prejudicial,€are€reviewed€under€a€òòde€novoóó€standard€with€no€presumptionÐ ° Ðof€correctness.€€òòóóòòFields€v.€Stateóó,€40€S.W.3d€450,€457€(Tenn.€2001)òòóóòòóó.Ð œì ÐÌÌà@» » ìàò òII.€POST„CONVICTION€HEARINGó óˆÐ `° ÐÌÔ#†XKAXXXKA™#Ôà  àIn€the€instant€case,€the€petitioner€testified€at€the€evidentiary€hearing€that€trial€counsel€told€himÐ 8 ˆ Ðhe€could€not€appeal€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€his€motion€to€suppress.€€The€petitioner€further€statedÐ $ t Ðtrial€counsel€told€him€they€could€not€appeal€his€convictions€because€his€trial€was€ð ðclean.ðð€€He€saidÐ  ` Ðtrial€counsel€did€not€tell€him€he€could€have€appealed€his€sentence€if€he€had€allowed€the€trial€courtÐ ü L  Ðto€sentence€him€instead€of€entering€into€the€agreement.€€€€Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€testified€he€went€to€the€sentencing€hearing€believing€he€would€be€placed€on€Ð À  Ðsome€form€of€alternative€sentencing.€€He€stated€one€of€his€attorneys€told€him€it€was€ð ða€goodÐ ¬ü  Ðpossibilityðð€he€could€receive€probation€or€community€corrections.€€The€petitioner€said€he€did€notÐ ˜è  Ðrecall€trial€counsel€telling€him€he€faced€a€potential€sentence€of€twelve€years€for€possession€of€cocaineÐ „Ô  Ðover€0.5€grams€with€the€intent€to€deliver,€a€Class€B€felony.€€òòSee€óóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€39„17„417(c)(1),Ð pÀ Ð40„35„112(a)(2).€€Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àAccording€to€the€petitioner,€on€the€day€of€his€sentencing€hearing,€he€went€with€his€twoÐ 4„ Ðdefense€attorneys€and€some€police€officers€to€listen€to€the€audio€tapes€of€the€alleged€drug€sales.€€TheÐ  p Ðpetitioner€said€he€left€to€make€a€telephone€call€before€listening€to€all€of€the€tapes.€€He€testified€he€didÐ  \ Ðnot€discuss€the€stateððs€evidence€with€his€attorneys;€he€stated€they€did€not€tell€him€the€effect€theÐ øH Ðevidence€could€have€on€his€sentencing,€or€that€the€evidence€could€lead€to€additional€charges€againstÐ ä4 Ðhim.€€He€testified€one€of€his€attorneys€told€him,€ð ðThere€is€nothing€worse€you€could€have€done.ðð€€HeÐ Ð  Ðsaid€his€defense€counsel€did€not€explain€the€sentencing€agreement€to€him€and€did€not€advise€him€thatÐ ¼  Ðhe€would€be€waiving€his€right€to€an€appeal.€€He€further€testified€he€would€have€sought€an€appeal€ifÐ ¨ø Ðthe€trial€court€had€sentenced€him€to€ð ðhard€timeðð€in€the€penitentiary.€€€Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àThe€petitionerððs€lead€trial€counsel€testified€for€the€state€at€the€evidentiary€hearing€andÐ l¼ Ðcontradicted€petitioner's€testimony€in€all€material€matters.€€The€attorney€stated€that€during€the€timeÐ X ¨ Ðhe€represented€the€petitioner,€they€spoke€every€week.€€He€said€he€advised€the€petitioner€of€his€rightsÐ D!” Ðmore€than€once€and€explained€the€ð ðentire€process€of€the€criminal€justice€system.ðð€€He€further€testifiedÐ 0"€  Ðhe€gave€the€petitioner€a€prognosis€of€all€the€possible€outcomes€of€his€case€and€explained€the€rangeÐ #l! Ðof€potential€punishments.€€The€attorney€said€he€advised€the€petitioner€of€his€right€to€appeal.€€€€€€Ð $X" ÐÌà  àAccording€to€the€attorney,€following€the€petitionerððs€convictions,€he€and€co„counsel€wereÐ à%0!$ Ðprepared€to€seek€community€corrections€as€a€sentencing€alternative;€however,€they€were€concernedÐ Ì&"% Ðthat€the€petitioner€would€be€incarcerated,€and€they€conveyed€these€concerns€to€the€petitioner.€€HeÐ ¸'#& Ðstated€they€advised€the€petitioner€that€he€could€possibly€be€required€to€serve€the€maximum€sentenceÐ ¤(ô#' Ðin€the€penitentiary.€€€€Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àTrial€counsel€said€that,€on€the€day€of€the€sentencing€hearing,€they€learned€the€state€intendedÐ ° Ðâ âto€present€evidence€showing€the€petitioner€had€engaged€in€drug€sales€while€on€bond.€€He€testifiedÐ œì Ðhe€and€the€petitioner€listened€to€the€audio€tapes€of€the€transactions,€and€the€petitionerððs€voice€couldÐ ˆØ Ðbe€heard€on€the€tapes.€€He€also€stated€he€and€the€petitioner€had€a€lengthy€discussion€with€two€MetroÐ tÄ Ðpolice€officers€who€were€involved€in€the€alleged€drug€sales.€€He€opined€the€stateððs€proof€that€theÐ `° Ðdefendant€had€engaged€in€the€alleged€drug€sales€was€strong.€€He€said€he€told€the€petitioner,€ð ðYouÐ L œ Ðscrewed€up€badly.€€You€could€not€do€it€any€worse.ðð€€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àThe€attorney€testified€that€as€a€result€of€the€new€evidence,€he€and€the€state€entered€intoÐ  ` Ðsettlement€negotiations€regarding€the€petitionerððs€sentence.€€The€state€offered€a€sentence€of€ten€yearsÐ ü L  Ðon€the€conviction€for€possession€of€cocaine€with€intent€to€deliver,€and€the€remaining€convictions,Ð è 8  Ðboth€misdemeanors,€would€be€served€concurrently.€€As€part€of€the€agreement,€the€petitioner€wouldÐ Ô$  Ðwaive€his€right€to€appeal€and€surrender€his€vehicle€for€forfeiture;€in€turn,€the€district€attorneyððs€officeÐ À  Ðwould€request€Metro€Nashville€not€to€indict€the€petitioner€for€the€two€alleged€drug€transactions.€€€Ð ¬ü  Ðà  àÌà  àTrial€counsel€stated€he€explained€the€sentencing€offer€to€the€petitioner,€including€theÐ „Ô  Ðrequirement€that€he€must€waive€his€right€to€appeal.€€He€said€he€also€explained€to€the€petitioner€heÐ pÀ Ðwas€facing€consecutive€sentences€if€convicted€of€the€offenses€which€allegedly€occurred€while€theÐ \¬ Ðpetitioner€was€on€bond.€€He€testified€he€further€explained€that€the€trial€court€might€impose€theÐ H˜ Ðmaximum€sentence€of€twelve€years€if€presented€with€the€evidence€the€petitioner€had€engaged€in€drugÐ 4„ Ðtransactions€while€on€bond.€€The€attorney€opined€the€stateððs€offer€of€ten€years€was€ð ðreasonableðð€andÐ  p Ðin€the€petitionerððs€best€interest€under€the€circumstances.€€He€stated€he€advised€the€petitioner€that€heÐ  \ Ðmust€make€his€own€decision€whether€to€accept€the€offer.€€€€€€€€à È àà  àÐ øH ÐÌà  àThe€parties€presented€the€settlement€agreement€to€the€trial€court.€€The€trial€court€explainedÐ Ð  Ðto€the€defendant€that€under€the€terms€of€the€agreement,€he€would€receive€a€ten„year€sentence€to€beÐ ¼  Ðserved€in€incarceration€and€would€be€waiving€his€right€to€appeal€his€convictions.€€The€defendantÐ ¨ø Ðindicated€he€understood€and€would€accept€the€agreement.€€Following€the€hearing,€the€petitionerÐ ”ä Ðsigned€the€order€waiving€his€right€to€an€appeal.Ð €Ð ÐÌÌà@··ìàò òIII.€ANALYSIS€OF€INEFFECTIVE€ASSISTANCE€OF€COUNSELó óˆÐ D!” ÐÌà  àFollowing€the€evidentiary€hearing€on€the€post„conviction€relief€petition,€the€post„convictionÐ #l! Ðcourt€stated€it€accredited€the€testimony€of€trial€counsel,€and€the€events€on€the€date€of€sentencing€gaveÐ $X" Ðð ðgreat€credibilityðð€to€counselððs€testimony.€€The€lower€court€found€trial€counsel€fully€advised€theÐ ô$D # Ðpetitioner€regarding€the€range€of€possible€sentences;€it€implicitly€found€counsel€fully€advised€theÐ à%0!$ Ðpetitioner€regarding€the€settlement€agreement.€€The€post„conviction€court€found€trial€counsel'sÐ Ì&"% Ðrepresentation€was€well€within€the€range€of€competence€demanded€by€òòStricklandóó€and€òòBaxteróó.€€TheÐ ¸'#& Ðevidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€findings€of€the€post„conviction€court.€€Likewise,€weÐ ¤(ô#' Ðconclude€trial€counselððs€performance€was€in€no€way€deficient.Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àOrdinarily,€this€would€end€our€inquiry€as€to€this€issue.€€However,€we€note€the€followingÐ ° Ðâ âstatement€by€the€post„conviction€court€at€the€conclusion€of€its€findings:Ð œì ÐÌÒ°ÒÒ°Òà8 ` à[T]he€Court€will€then€also€reiterate€that€the€Court€believes€the€law€isÐ tÄ Ðthat€the€uncorroborated€testimony€of€a€petitioner€is€insufficient€to€goÐ `° Ðforward.€€That€is€all€the€testimony€on€many€of€the€issues€that€theÐ L œ ÐCourt€heard€from€the€defendant.€€Those€issues€should€be€struckÐ 8 ˆ Ðsummarily€.€.€.€.Ð$ t` x` x ÐÌÒ°ZBÒÒ°LBÒBased€upon€this€statement,€we€have€examined€the€record€to€ascertain€whether€the€petition€wasÐ ü L  Ðdismissed€solely€because€the€petitionerððs€testimony€was€uncorroborated.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àThe€comments€of€the€post„conviction€court€are€understandable€in€light€of€the€language€usedÐ À  Ðin€various€opinions€of€this€court.€€This€language€appears€to€have€its€genesis€in€òòMorgan€v.€Stateóó,€445Ð ¬ü  ÐS.W.2d€477€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1969),€one€of€the€first€post„conviction€cases€decided€by€this€courtÐ ˜è  Ðafter€the€adoption€of€the€Post„Conviction€Procedure€Act€of€1967.€€In€òòMorganóó,€we€stated€ð ð[theÐ „Ô  Ðpetitionersðð]€uncorroborated€testimony€does€not€sustain€the€burden€of€proof€resting€upon€them,€orÐ pÀ Ðjustify€granting€the€writ€of€habeas€corpus,€where€the€judgment€is€regular€upon€its€face€and€entitledÐ \¬ Ðto€the€presumption€of€validity.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€480.€€The€court€cited€cases€that€were€all€decided€prior€to€theÐ H˜ Ðadoption€of€the€Post„Conviction€Procedure€Act€of€1967€and€involved€only€habeas€corpus€relief.€Ð 4„ ÐShortly€after€òòMorganóó,€we€stated€in€òòSwaw€v.€Stateóó,€457€S.W.2d€875,€876€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1970),Ð  p Ðthat€ð ð[the€post„conviction€relief€petitionerððs]€uncorroborated€testimony€is€insufficient€to€carry€[theÐ  \ Ðburden€of€proof],€where€the€judgment€is€regular€on€its€face€and€entitled€to€the€presumption€ofÐ øH Ðvalidity.ððÐ ä4 ÐÌà  àIn€òòSherrill€v.€Stateóó,€772€S.W.2d€60,€62€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1989),€this€court€specificallyÐ ¼  Ðrejected€the€stateððs€reliance€on€òòMorganóó€for€the€proposition€that€the€uncorroborated€testimony€of€aÐ ¨ø Ðpost„conviction€relief€petitioner€is€insufficient€òòper€seóó€to€sustain€his€burden€of€proof.€€We€noted€suchÐ ”ä Ða€proposition€would€preclude€the€post„conviction€court€from€finding€counsel€to€be€ineffective€evenÐ €Ð Ðif€the€post„conviction€€court€were€convinced€of€the€veracity€of€the€petitioner€and€the€validity€of€hisÐ l¼ Ðclaim.€€òòId.óó€at€63.€€Further,€it€found€such€a€holding€would€contradict€the€spirit€of€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523Ð X ¨ ÐS.W.2d€930€(Tenn.€1975),€which€was€decided€after€òòMorganóó,€and€ð ðwould€work€an€injustice€andÐ D!” Ðgenerally€serve€as€authority€to€defeat€any€petitioner€who€claimsðð€trial€counsel€was€not€effective.€Ð 0"€  ÐòòSherrillóó,€772€S.W.2d€at€63.€€Ð #l! ÐÌà  àDespite€òòSherillóó,€our€court€has€since€routinely€cited€òòMorganóó€and/or€òòSwawóó€in€stating€that€a€post„Ð ô$D # Ðconviction€relief€petitionerððs€uncorroborated€testimony€is€insufficient€to€carry€the€burden€of€proofÐ à%0!$ Ðwhere€the€judgment€is€regular€on€its€face€and€entitled€to€the€presumption€of€validity.€€òòSee,€e.g.,óó€òòStateÐ Ì&"% Ðv.€Kerleyóó,€820€S.W.2d€753,€757€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991);€òòDevito€S.€Polk€v.€Stateóó,€€No.€02C01„9602„Ð ¸'#& ÐCR„00065,€1997€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€LEXIS€189,€at€**3„4€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Feb.€28,€1997,€atÐ ¤(ô#' ÐJackson);€òòBart€Chandler€v.€Stateóó,€No.€02C01„9502„CC„00047,€1995€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€LEXIS€702,Ð )à$( Ðat€*4€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Aug.€23,€1995,€at€Jackson);€òòDonald€R.€West€v.€Stateóó,€No.€03C01„9407„CR„Ð |*Ì%) Ð00253,€1995€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€LEXIS€359,€at€*7€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Apr.€26,€1995,€at€Knoxville)Ð h+¸&* Ð(petitionerððs€testimony€standing€alone€carries€little€weight),€òòperm.€to€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1995);Ð ° ÐòòWilliam€Dan€Johnson€v.€Stateóó,€No.€02C01„9212„CR„00263,€1994€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€LEXIS€45,€atÐ œì Ð*6€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Feb.€2,€1994,€at€Jackson),€òòperm.€to€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1994);€òòDavid€M.€OgleÐ ˆØ Ðv.€Stateóó,€No.€03C01„9303„CR„00104,€1994€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€LEXIS€4,€at€*3€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Jan.Ð tÄ Ð6,€1994,€at€Knoxville).€€However,€we€note€that€in€none€of€these€cases€was€the€lack€of€corroborationÐ `° Ðfully€determinative€of€the€issues€presented.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àThere€is€clearly€one€area€of€law€which€requires€corroboration€of€a€witnessððs€testimony.€€TheÐ $ t Ðtestimony€of€an€Ô‡XKAXXXKAÔaccomplice„witness€must€be€corroborated€in€order€to€support€a€conviction.€€òòSeeóó€òòStateÐ  ` Ðv.€Baneóó,€57€S.W.3d€411,€419€(Tenn.€2001).€€This€requirement€has€long€been€entrenched€in€ourÐ ü L  Ðcriminal€law.€òòóóÔ#†XKAXXXKAU#ÔThe€clear€and€obvious€reason€for€such€a€requirement€regarding€accomplices€is€toÐ è 8  Ðprotect€the€accusedððs€right€to€a€fair€trial€and€to€guard€him€against€untruthful€testimony€by€a€witnessÐ Ô$  Ðwith€suspect€motivation.€€òòSee€generally€id.€atóó€420;€òòSherrill€v.€Stateóó,€321€S.W.2d€811,€814€(Tenn.Ð À  Ð1959).Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àWe€do€not€believe€that€our€court,€through€the€use€of€the€òòMorganóó€language,€has€intended€toÐ „Ô  Ðcreate€a€blanket€rule,€similar€to€the€accomplice€corroboration€requirement,€that€a€post„convictionÐ pÀ Ðpetitionerððs€testimony€òòmustóó€be€corroborated€by€some€other€witness€or€evidence€in€order€to€beÐ \¬ Ðconsidered€on€its€merits.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àOur€stateððs€Post„Conviction€Procedure€Act€is€intended€to€be€a€vehicle€for€the€good€faithÐ  p Ðclaims€of€defendants€deprived€of€their€constitutional€rights.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Mennóó,€668€S.W.2d€671,€673Ð  \ Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984).€€As€we€noted€in€òòSherrillóó,€because€of€the€inherently€private€and€confidentialÐ øH Ðnature€of€the€attorney„client€relationship,€a€corroboration€requirement€as€applied€to€a€claim€ofÐ ä4 Ðineffective€assistance€of€counsel€would€often€be€impossible€for€a€petitioner€to€establish.€€772€S.W.2dÐ Ð  Ðat€62.€€Such€a€requirement€would€preclude€relief€where€only€the€petitioner€and€trial€counsel€wereÐ ¼  Ðprivy€to€the€challenged€conduct,€even€if€the€post„conviction€court€found€the€petitioner's€testimonyÐ ¨ø Ðto€be€credible.€€Thus,€we€find€the€trial€courtððs€statement€that€the€petitionerððs€uncorroboratedÐ ”ä Ðtestimony€ð ðshould€be€struck€summarilyðð€to€be€in€error.€€Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àHowever,€after€carefully€reviewing€the€record€and€the€trial€courtððs€findings€in€this€case,€it€isÐ X ¨ Ðevident€that,€despite€the€post„conviction€courtððs€statement,€it€did€not€summarily€dismiss€the€petitionÐ D!” Ðor€summarily€disregard€the€petitionerððs€testimony.€€Instead,€the€lower€court€properly€conducted€a€fullÐ 0"€  Ðhearing€on€the€petition€in€which€the€state€presented€strong€and€detailed€testimony€by€trial€counsel€toÐ #l! Ðrebut€the€petitionerððs€testimony€in€all€material€respects.€€Our€review€shows€the€post„conviction€courtÐ $X" Ðweighed€all€of€the€proof,€including€the€testimony€of€the€petitioner€and€of€trial€counsel,€madeÐ ô$D # Ðextensive€findings,€accredited€the€testimony€of€trial€counsel,€implicitly€rejected€the€credibility€ofÐ à%0!$ Ðpetitioner's€testimony,€and€made€a€proper€ruling€based€upon€all€the€evidence€and€the€courtððsÐ Ì&"% Ðobservations€regarding€the€weight€and€credibility€of€the€evidence.€€Therefore,€while€we€find€the€post„Ð ¸'#& Ðconviction€courtððs€statement€regarding€the€petitionerððs€uncorroborated€testimony€to€be€error,€weÐ ¤(ô#' Ðconclude€this€error€did€not€affect€the€manner€in€which€the€post„conviction€court€conducted€theÐ )à$( Ðhearing€or€made€its€findings.Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àDefendantððs€contention€that€he€was€deprived€of€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel€is€withoutÐ ° Ðmerit.Ð œì ÐÌÌà@• • ìàò òIV.€€VOLUNTARY€WAIVER€OF€RIGHT€TO€APPEALó óˆÐ `° ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€also€contends€he€did€not€voluntarily€waive€his€right€to€appeal.€€At€the€post„Ð 8 ˆ Ðconviction€hearing,€he€testified€he€was€ð ðstressed€out€to€the€maxðð€at€the€time€he€entered€into€theÐ $ t Ðsentencing€agreement€and€did€not€understand€he€was€waiving€his€right€to€an€appeal.€€He€stated€heÐ  ` Ðrecalled€telling€the€trial€court€he€understood€his€rights€and€knew€what€he€was€doing,€but,€in€reality,Ð ü L  Ðhe€did€not€understand€what€he€was€doing.€€He€further€testified€he€signed€the€order€waiving€his€rightÐ è 8  Ðto€an€appeal€without€reading€it€properly€because€he€did€not€have€his€glasses.€€Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àA€criminal€defendant€has€the€right€to€one€level€of€appellate€review.€€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€3(b);Ð ¬ü  ÐòòCollins€v.€Stateóó,€670€S.W.2d€219,€221€(Tenn.€1984)òòóó.€€A€defendantððs€waiver€of€this€right€to€appealÐ ˜è  Ðmust€be€made€voluntarily.€€òòSee€óóTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€37(d);€òòCollinsóó,€670€S.W.2d€at€221òòóó.€€Further,€theÐ „Ô  Ðwaiver€should€be€reduced€to€writing€in€a€document€signed€by€the€defendant,€subscribed€to€byÐ pÀ Ðcounsel,€and€clearly€reflecting€the€defendant's€awareness€of€the€right€to€appeal€and€voluntarilyÐ \¬ Ðwaiving€it.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€37(d).Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àIn€the€instant€case,€the€record€shows€that€both€trial€counsel€and€the€trial€court€advised€theÐ  p Ðpetitioner€he€would€be€waiving€his€right€to€an€appeal€under€the€terms€of€the€agreement,€and€theÐ  \ Ðpetitioner€indicated€he€understood€and€wished€to€accept€the€agreement.€€Further,€the€proofÐ øH Ðestablished€the€petitioner€signed€a€written€order€clearly€stating€he€was€waiving€his€right€to€an€appeal.€Ð ä4 ÐThe€post„conviction€court€found€the€petitioner€voluntarily€waived€his€right€to€an€appeal.€€TheÐ Ð  Ðevidence€does€not€preponderate€against€this€finding.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð ¼  ÐÌÌà@FF%ìàò òCONCLUSIONó óˆÐ €Ð ÐÌà  àIn€summary,€we€conclude€the€post„conviction€court€did€not€err€in€denying€the€petitionerððsÐ X ¨ Ðrequest€for€post„conviction€relief.€€We€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€post„conviction€court.Ð D!” ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð ô$D # Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJOE€G.€RILEY,€JUDGE